Another Reminder Homosexuality & Freedom of Speech Are Incompatible

An adjunct is teaching a class about Catholicism at the University of Illinois, Urbana.  As part of that class, he discusses what the Catholic Church believes about natural law and homosexuality.  So he's fired.  From the July 9, 2010 Urbana News-Gazette:

Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI's Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.

Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the department for nine years, during which he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also director of the Institute of Catholic Thought, part of St. John's Catholic Newman Center on campus and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Funding for his salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.

One of the students complained about this email--supposedly for a "friend" who was also a student in the class, calling Howell's statements about homosexuality (which are definitely Catholic doctrine, whether you agree with it or not) "hate speech."

You've signed up for a class about Catholicism. Inevitably, this will mean learning what Catholicism teaches--and Catholicism teaches that homosexuality is wrong. It sounds like the adjunct was doing his job: teaching students what Catholicism teaches.

I taught first semester Western Civ this last semester.  Inevitably, I presented a warts and all history of the Catholic Church, of Islam, and of Protestantism.  They all did good things at times; they all did evil as well, sometimes even at the same time.  I am sure that somewhere, there's a Catholic, a Muslim, or a Protestant, who probably found it unpleasant to hear about the bad stuff.  But you can't understand where we are today as a civilization without understanding what happened--and a forthright statement of Catholic doctrine about homosexuality is no more "hate speech" than a forthright discussion of the ideology of Communism, or National Socialism, or Social Darwinism.

Homosexuality is fast becoming the new fascism.

Want To Be Disturbed?

Professor Kenneth Anderson over at Volokh Conspiracy said something that ten years ago would have been so common sense that no one, except perhaps a devout fundamentalist Muslim, would have disputed it:

Earlier this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued perhaps the single most appalling statement of official multiculturalism I have read with regard to the United States in many years.  It called for de-criminalizing what might be called a softer, gentler form of clitoral mutilation — allowing for a “ritual nick” of a girl’s clitoris instead.  The fundamental argument was that if the US did not relax its criminal laws against  “any non-medical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl, families committed to the practice would take them elsewhere for a much more thorough mutilation.

This ritual drawing of a drop of blood from a girl’s clitoris — and that is on the generous assumption that, over a decade or so, that’s all it turns out to be, rather than the stalking horse of the very thing that led to the change in policy — performed in a doctor’s office by, presumably, a pediatrician or nurse following the American Academy of Pediatrics’ advice, would therefore save American girls from a worse mutilation elsewhere.  So.   The laws of the United States and the norms of American society in a deeply fundamental matter are to be held hostage against the possibility of what might happen to an American girl taken to Somalia or elsewhere.  Nowhere in the Academy’s logic did anyone discuss the possibility that relaxing a norm under the threat of its worse violation might count as, well, reward behavior and you’ll get more it.  If you give a mouse a cookie, if you give a moose a muffin, and if you give the American Academy of Pediatrics a girl’s clitoris to nick ...

The Academy, under intense pressure from advocates against female genital mutilation, has withdrawn its statement.  The advice, of course, is important, because among other things it offers a “best practices” defense against claims of malpractice or abuse or what have you.  One of the striking things about the Academy is that it has offered controversial counsel to pediatricians before — such as its advice several years ago about pediatricians interviewing their young female patients alone to solicit the possibility of sexual abuse.  Generally its views have trended toward “helping profession” interventions into the family.  What therefore makes the Academy’s now-withdrawn view particularly striking is how it essentially opts for “multiculturalism” over conventional feminism.  Nor would I assume that this proposal is gone for good.  It would be better understood as the Academy and its ideological supporters floating a trial balloon, with an long term advocacy goal of accustoming the public to the idea.  Rust never sleeps.

What is disturbing are the comments, many of them from lawyers and law students, essentially arguing that Anderson is being narrow-minded, stuck in traditional Judeo-Christian views, etc. And yet me emphasize: many of those making these arguments are people whose comments I have followed for a long time in other threads, and who have repeatedly made clear their positions. They are progressives, liberals, and homosexuals. Yes: because a cultural practice that is associated with Islam (although not required by it) is under threat, they must defend it--even though it is the worst form of barbarism.

A few of the attacks on Professor Anderson's concerns:

People make this sort of deal all of the time. Parents allow their kids to drink, as long as they do it in their presence. Nevada allows prostitution, as long as the brothels follow certain rules that make the practice more safe. Etc. Etc.

Of course, whether this sort of trade off makes sense in this case is a separate question. But the mere fact that the American Academy of Pediatrics is considering it shouldn’t be abhorent to you, unless you always object to this sort of trade off. (Do you?)

And:

Is there any evidence that the ritual “nick” has any negative impacts? Or more negative impacts than, say, ear piercing or tatooing?

And:

The right grounds for legalization is that drawing a drop of blood is a reasonable religious accommodation that does not deliver any lasting harm to the children involved. The wrong reason is that we want to make a less-evil but still evil substitute for terrible practices elsewhere.

And this is the one that really gets to the heart of why progressives are defending this:

I’ve read through this whole thread, and I haven’t seen anything to convince me that you can oppose this while supporting ritual (NOT medical, which can be done later in life and with consent) male circumcision on any other ground than “our invisible man in the sky is better than theirs”.

That said, I think it’s perfectly fine to make a slippery slope argument here– there really is a danger that once you start compromising medical ethics for procedures that are “culturally” supported, you start on a road that ends in a very bad place. But I would argue that’s true of Judeo-Christian male circumcision too– indeed, if that were illegal, we wouldn’t even be arguing as to whether a mild form of female circumcision should be legalized.

 Got that?  Because male circumcision (which has been demonstrated to have significant health advantages from the standpoint of infections and STD transmission) is part of the Judeo-Christian Western tradition, therefore any practice performed in Muslim countries that can be compared to it by false analogy is therefore okay.  And at the core, what drives the progressive and liberal love of not just Islam, but a barbarous practice like female genital mutilation, is fury that Christianity has refused to roll over and play dead on the homosexuality issue.

Reading comments like the ones in that thread is part of why I am becoming increasingly convinced that homosexuality--at least, open, widely accepted homosexuality--is incompatible with civilization.  Progressives are turning into apologists for female genital mutilation because it makes homosexuals feel better about themselves.  And Volokh Conspiracy commenters are so thick in lawyers, law professors, and law students (the people that will, as they advance their careers, tell legislators what they are allowed to pass) like these monsters.

Change The Details of This Case...

and ask if this would have received round the clock coverage.  Imagine if the three "roommates" were, say, Mormon missionaries, and a gay man had been stabbed to death.  Richard Fernandez mentions a case that I had not even heard of:

Like the recently concluded Robert Wone case — in which three gay men were acquitted of the murder of a man in their apartment — the New Black Panther incident pits a politically powerful minority against ordinary victims. The public is asked to understand the situation from the perspective of the underdog. What does it matter if men in New Black Party uniforms paced across a voting precinct? They’re just evening the score. Or so we are told. But in situations where the world’s largest midget fights the world’s smallest giant the “correct narrative” is no longer so obvious; just who is bigger is no longer clear and the system by rights should fall back on the law itself  and ask itself “who really violated the law.”


But the habits of political correctness are so ingrained that even this logical parachute fails to open. In the Wone case, even when the judge is inclined to find the stories of the three defendants preposterous, the word “guilty” can hardly be pronounced. The Washington Post reports that Judge “Leibovitz said she believed that the three defendants know who killed Wone, but that the prosecution failed to prove that they did. It came down to the reasonable doubt standard, she said.” The Wone case is singular for the questions that were not asked and the media coverage that never materialized.

 Professor Volokh raises a different angle on it--and again, there is so much here that is profoundly disturbing--and yet it is clear that because this gay "triple" (a long-term relationship of three men, at least one of who is into sadomasochism) is at the heart of it--it's getting no coverage.  There's a Wikipedia page about it--and the more I read, the more concerned that I am that because of the sexual orientation of the three men who either likely committed the murder, or at least covered up who did it--it is taboo for national news coverage.  There's kinky sex, apparently, probably rape, murder, half of Mr. Wone's blood is missing--and suspicious puncture marks, a covered up crime--all the aspects of what would ordinarily be a major news story, just for the prurient aspects alone.  But we can't actually look too carefully at this, because it might remind everyone that there are some aspects of some of the gay subcultures that are really, really evil.

Please Explain This One

Please Explain This One

Chastity Bono has completed the transition to being male. In some ideal world, what Chastity/Chaz does in private would be completely irrelevant to anyone else.  But unfortunately, the continual yammering and hammering by the transgender crowd for governmental action means that nothing is really private anymore: the personal is the political.

This transition raises several interesting questions about "Chaz" Bono and her/his relationship with "partner" Jennifer Elia.

1. If Chastity is now a man, then he is having sex with a woman (Jennifer Elia).  Does that mean Chaz Bono has changed from being a lesbian to a heterosexual man?

2. If Jennifer Elia is now having sex with Chaz Bono, a man, does that mean that Jennifer Elia has changed from being a lesbian to a heterosexual (or at least a bisexual)?

3. Wait a minute: I thought that the claims that you could change your sexual orientation from gay to straight were just lies.  But here we have two lesbians changing their sexual orientation!  Or is Chaz not really a man?

4. A number of trouble makers like myself have long suspected that there is a connection, for at least some homosexuals, between childhood sexual abuse, and adult sexual confusion.  Even those championing homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle have sometimes made damaging admissions in this area.  If a woman preferring another woman is a natural, completely healthy and normal orientation, isn't there something just a bit weird about Jennifer Elia being a lesbian, now is "partner" to an ersatz man?  Isn't this exactly what you might expect if Elia's sexual orientation was the result of a traumatic or destructive relationship with a real man?

Just So You Know Where The Left Is Going

Just So You Know Where The Left Is Going

There was a time when people in Britain could be punished for not believing Christian doctrine.  Now they get punished for stating it.  From the May 1, 2010 Daily Mail:

A Christian street preacher has been arrested and charged with a public-order offence after saying that homosexuality was sinful.

Dale Mcalpine was handing out leaflets to shoppers when he told a passer-by and a gay police community support officer that, as a Christian, he believed homosexuality was one of a number of sins that go against the word of God.

Mr Mcalpine said that he did not repeat his remarks on homosexuality when he preached from the top of a stepladder after his leafleting.

But he has been told that police officers are alleging they heard him making his remarks to a member of the public in a loud voice that could be overheard by others.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html#ixzz0n1kvun9E

Freedom of religion; homosexuality: pick one.

Those Uncivil, Impolite Conservatives

Those Uncivil, Impolite Conservatives

From April 19, 2010 The Hill:

Gay rights protesters interrupted President Barack Obama's speech at a fundraiser for California Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) Monday night in Los Angeles.

Activists from a group called GetEQUAL began shouting at Obama while he was speaking at the podium. They expressed frustration over the slow progress of repealing the ban on openly gay people serving in the military.

The protests brought the speech to a halt, and the protesters did not lower their voices after others in the crowd urged them to end their shouting.

The Transgendered Elementary School Kids of Maine

The Transgendered Elementary School Kids of Maine

A reader sent me a link to this April 13, 2010 Fox News news story and interview about the Maine Human Rights Commission's proposal to eliminate sex-specific restrooms in elementary schools. This April 14, 2010 Bangor (Maine) Daily News article confirms that this was actually under discussion, but there are apparently a few people living in Maine still who haven't bought into the whole transgendered lie:

AUGUSTA, Maine — The Maine Human Rights Commission is backing away from controversial plans to issue new guidelines for how schools should accommodate transgender students.

Commission members decided Monday to cancel a public hearing on the issue and to shelve, at least temporarily, work on a guidance document called “Sexual Orientation in Schools and Colleges.”

The proposed guidelines have sparked a heated debate over what steps, if any, schools should take to accommodate students who identify with the opposite gender rather than with their biological sex. The issue becomes particularly thorny when dealing with questions over transgender students’ use of locker rooms and bathrooms and ability to play on athletics teams.

This isn't a matter of lunatic bureaucrats worried about issues that aren't real:

The guidance is intended to help schools follow the anti-discrimination laws within the Maine Human Rights Act and to avoid complaints against schools filed with the commission. The Penobscot County Superior Court is reviewing a commission ruling against the Orono School Department, which had denied a transgender boy from using the girls bathroom.

Keep in mind that "transgender boy" likely means a boy who has not had a sex change, but is dressing as a girl and expects everyone to treat him as a girl.

As I have pointed out in the past, this whole transgender and sex change thing makes homosexuality seem positively normal. There seems to be no stopping point on the road to destruction.

Who Is It That Supports Gay Equal Rights?

Who Is It That Supports Gay Equal Rights?

Democrats? I was pleased to see that President Obama wasn't as stupid as he seemed--since he seems to have nothing more towards repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" than lip service. This article from the January 15, 2010 The Hill reminds us that what's holding up a change in policy is another Democrat:

The leading House Democrat on military policy said Friday that he opposes repealing the law that bans openly gay people from serving in the military.

Seventeen years ago, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) played a major role in crafting the controversial law known as "Don't ask, don't tell." When President Bill Clinton wanted to lift the ban preventing gay people from joining the military, Skelton opposed the move. The end result was a compromise under which gay service members would conceal their sexual orientation.

As I pointed out last year, I have very mixed feelings about the ban on homosexuals serving in the military:

As I have said, there are doubtless a fair number of homosexuals in the military who are showing their love of country by going into the military--and staying there--even though the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy creates a very difficult situation for them. Those that put service to nation above their understandable personal desire to not have to live a lie deserve praise.

As I also pointed out last year, when linking to a piece by a closeted gay soldier:

I have my objections to allowing homosexuals into the military, but they aren't what you might think. I do not think that homosexuals can't be good soldiers. My guess is that the more bizarrely self-destructive homosexuals who make such a spectacle of themselves in the streets of San Francisco aren't inclined towards the kind of sacrifice and honor-driven behavior that Colorado Patriot describes. It's the same reason that Code Pink members aren't joining up, either.

As I mentioned several years ago, one of my concerns is that in some military settings, with all the requirements to obey orders, and limited opportunity to appeal a decision, it would be very easy to abuse authority--and I gave an example from the end of World War II, when the U.S. Navy had not yet formalized a prohibition on homosexuals in the service, and the nightmare that resulted on one ship. Yes, we have procedures to handle that sort of thing--but for the same reason that women in the military have been sometimes quite reluctant to file charges about rape, the problem will be substantially worse if the victim is a man.

I am concerned that a fair number of current members of the military, if put in a situation like that, might decide not to re-up, and many might decide not to join. How many? It's hard to say for sure, but if even 10% of the current population that is in, or considering going into the military, decided not to do so, it would be catastrophic, since homosexuals are only about 4-4.5% of the male population, and 1-2% of the female population. I don't find a 10% loss rate implausible, considering how traditional much of the population is that joins our military.

What concerns me most of all is this: homosexuals who are currently in the military under DADT are committed to the success of our military--even at some considerable personal sacrifice above and beyond the personal sacrifices that all members of the armed services undergo. They are having to watch what they say (like Colorado Patriot) to be in the service. Dropping DADT would, I fear, encourage a fair number of homosexual activists out to prove a point to enlist--and who would then insist that displays of affection, sex in the barracks, dressing in drag after hours, and other signs of...flamboyance...were part of gay culture. Would any of this set stay in the military, after making their point, and winning their lawsuits? Certainly not. But like the Goodridges, who won the right to marry in Massachusetts in 2003--and are now divorced--they would have done their damage, and gone on to destroy something else.

It's pretty clear that not just Republicans, but even Democrats, such as Rep. Skelton, are concerned about the possible consequences of repealing DADT. Those who insist on seeing homosexuality as a neat partisan divide are not playing straight about this.

More GLSEN At Work

More GLSEN At Work

Just so you know what public schools in some parts of the country are teaching kids to do, here's some of what was discussed at a GLSEN event funded by the Massachusetts Department of Education in 2000 at which both students and teachers were being educated:

Woman: Question is: What's fisting?

Man: A little known fact is that you don't make a fist like this. When they do it, it's like this. This is a lot easier than this. [laughter]

Woman: You work your way up to it… [unclear] one finger, two fingers, three fingers … Some people can take a hand, or they can't take a hand.

...

Woman teacher: Fisting is not forcing your hand into somebody's orifice or opening or hole or whatever you want to say if they don't want it there. So the first thing is usually relax [unclear] … It's not like you're doing any forced sex on anybody. It's usually [unclear, and chatter] … two consenting adults … it's two consenting adults, and you work your way up to it.… [unclear] you can put one finger … two fingers, three fingers … Some people can take a hand, or they can't take a hand.

Some people don't want to go that far … It's all a very intense and [unclear] experience and not an abusive or rough [unclear] kind of experience… Some people do want pain and I'm not cutting that down, but that's typically not why people do that.

Isn't that what you want your middle schoolers to be learning? Isn't that what you want your tax dollars funding? And GLSEN's executive director now works for Obama. The whole collection of materials is pretty repulsive. If you want to do this sort of thing in the privacy of your home, fine, but I don't see why this is the government's job.

For Those Who Think Homosexuality Is An Alternative Lifestyle

For Those Who Think Homosexuality Is An Alternative Lifestyle

Gateway Pundit has a detailed report on the books that GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) recommends that schools offer to kids. GLSEN is the organization that Kevin Jennings used to run before Obama gave him an appointment as the "Safe Schools Czar." The books that GLSEN promotes to schools are explicit pedophile pornography--as the excerpts will demonstrate. To call these excerpts disgusting doesn't even begin to describe it--many readers will be nauseated, angry, and filled with rage seeing what one of Obama's advisors thinks is appropriate for kids.

To put it bluntly, GLSEN's book recommendations alone demonstrate that pedophilia and homosexuality are closely allied. Many homosexuals are not pedophiles--but GLSEN clearly sees these as kindred movements.

Not surprisingly, there has been a cyberattack on Gateway Pundit because homosexual activists really don't want Americans to know what depravity and evil GLSEN and similar homosexual advocacy groups are trying to put onto our kids.

A Courageous Editorial

A Courageous Editorial

At least in San Francisco. In most of America, this wouldn't even be an issue. From the December 2, 2009 San Francisco Chronicle:

Public sex tents? Now there's an idea that should have been shot down the second it was announced from the mouth of a member of the "leather community" in response to complaints about public sex at Folsom Street Fair and its smaller sibling fair, Up Your Alley.

Instead, it appears that at least one of our local leaders (Supervisor Bevan Dufty) has agreed to take the matter "under advisement." Since our local leaders are having trouble speaking the obvious, we will: Public sex is not appropriate at Folsom Street Fair or anywhere else. Even in San Francisco.
Public sex isn't just lewd, it's illegal under state law. San Francisco officials and police have historically given the fairs broad leeway to self-police bawdy behavior, but that should have been revoked the moment that citizens complained. Instead, people are giving serious thought to ways to make the streets safe for public sex and unsafe for public decency.
Enough. This is a quality-of-life issue that should have been tackled years ago. Local leaders need to stop clowning around and insist that everyone obey the law.

San Francisco is such a sick and disgusting place. Let me emphasize: there's a reason that San Francisco city government tolerates this behavior in public places. They aren't doing this because 1% of 1% of the population is sick and depraved. It's a lot bigger fraction of the population that finds this acceptable.

The comments are pretty indicative of the state of San Francisco culture:

Why doesn't the author of this editorial just find a nice safe mall to go to on Folsom Day? If sex tents are not your thing, you can choose to not go into one. I think moral outrage and the impulse to send the police in to facilitate one's control-freaky intolerance for that which one can simply and easily opt-out of is FAR MORE DESTRUCTIVE to society than public sex.. or sex in a tent. STAY AT HOME AND FAINT ON YOUR OWN DAMN COUCH, YOU VICTORIAN CONTROL FREAK PRUDE!

and:

How is this a "quality of life" issue? Those who object to witnessing sexual behavior in public certainly don't have to go. Who are the complainers? I'll give some latitude to the people who live there and are impacted, though SOMETHING is gonna impact you in every neighborhood. It is a city, after all. But most of the complainers don't live in the neighborhood -- many don't even live in the City. Why is it a bad idea to use tents to hide the behavior from people who don't wanna watch?

and:

Really?? This is folsom street. Of course guys and girls str8 and gay are going to be having sex in public. It is an erotic leather festival. And for the people who live on the street and complain.. dude.. what were you thinking moving to Folsom street?! This is what folsom street is all about and has always been about. You don't really have the right to complain. If you wanted to live in suburbia you should have moved there. Let folsom street be folsom street.

and:

Grow up. If you don't like it, DON'T GO. Now one "runs" into the Folsom Street Fair by mistake. We all know what it is, what it does, and what a wonderful freedom it is. I'm a married man who has not caught "the gay" yet thank God (though I wash my hands a lot), but this is about personal freedoms. If you can't handle either avoiding the Fair, ignoring the Fair or going to and enjoying the Fair, then pack up your stuff, leave SF and move east, they are more like you there. You can all be stuffy together. Or maybe you would like to move to a country where they kill people with "the gay"?

All I can look forward to is when I'm 60, I'm the "old conservative" one, and everyone younger than me doesn't even remember Prop 8, Civil Rights movement, JFK, Bobby, King, Milk and why on earth we ever kept down other humans when there are all these aliens and robots around to abuse.

and:

Why are Americans so hung up on sex? It is just sex. What if we all went to small booths and ate alone only to go later to large fecaltoriums to sit on toilets with friends and love ones to share share our bowel movements. More openness. If you don't like it don't look.

My favorite sensible comment was:

It's very difficult to take people seriously when they claim to want homosexuality to be an officially approved and socially sanctioned form of relationship equal to heterosexual relationships while at the same time supporting disgusting and disease-spreading public sex events either explicitly or by silence and lack of condemnation.

Gay advocacy groups need to do more to promote traditional values among the gay community if they want acceptance into traditional values! Condemning public promiscuous AIDS/STD-spreading sex would be a big step forward, but I suspect that they'll never do it because the real reason for trying to legalize gay marriage in their eyes is to offend and get some sort of "revenge" on anyone who doesn't approve of homosexuality.

A Surprising But Pleasing Victory

A Surprising But Pleasing Victory

New York State Senate overwhelmingly rejects gay marriage. From the December 3, 2009 Washington Post:

NEW YORK -- Opponents of gay marriage celebrated a decisive vote in the New York State Senate, where a proposal to legalize same-sex marriage was defeated 38 to 24 on Wednesday.

The unexpectedly wide margin was delivered in a relatively liberal state where the other chamber of the legislature has thrice approved the measure and the governor, David A. Paterson, had been poised to sign it into law. The vote prompted pronouncements that the momentum for gay marriage had been not only halted, but also effectively reversed. Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and, most recently, New Hampshire, where it goes into effect Jan. 1.

Same-Sex Marriage in Maine On The Ballot

Same-Sex Marriage in Maine On The Ballot

You may be aware that Maine's legislature voted to recognize same-sex marriage recently; Stand for Marriage Maine has put a referendum on the upcoming ballot, giving voters a chance to override the legislature. If you are in Maine, you know what to do.

The Article Title Sounds Like a Nasty Anti-Gay Joke...

The Article Title Sounds Like a Nasty Anti-Gay Joke...

or perhaps the sort of hypothetical that a law professor might come up with the force his students to think. But it comes from the October 8, 2009 Daily Mail:

One gay man, two lesbians, a three-legged cat and a poisoned curry plot

A gay man tried to poison his lesbian neighbours by putting slug pellets into their curry after he was accused of kidnapping their three-legged cat.

Gary Stewart, 37, had been at loggerheads with Marie Walton and Beverley Sales for months.

But things looked brighter when he made a peace offering of some curry, claiming he had ordered too much from the Indian takeaway.

When the women started to eat, they found the curry studded with slug pellets.

They called the police and Stewart was arrested.

He appeared before magistrates in Manchester where he admitted attempting to poison the two women on September 22.

He denied a further charge of making threats to kill.

Last night it emerged that Miss Walton, a full-time mother, and Miss Sales, a goods vehicle driver, had been the victims of an apparent hate campaign by Stewart at their home in Denton, Manchester.

As Red Ink: Texas points out:

But apparently in the UK, if you happen to be of a protected class, any attempt on your life, regardless of the reason counts as a hate crime. Let this be a warning to Congress. They are about to pass a defense bill that has had a gay hate crime amendment stuck in it.

I can't find any evidence in the article that Stewart is being charged with a hate crime. But here's the question: if Stewart was closeted--and no one knew he was gay--would he be charged with a hate crime? Would he have to admit his homosexuality to clear himself from a hate crime charge?

The Perfect Storm of Political Correctness Run Amok

The Perfect Storm of Political Correctness Run Amok

The only thing missing would be if this guy was vegetarian, too! From the October 5, 2009 Daily Mail:

A former judge is facing life in prison after being charged with sexually abusing male inmates in exchange for leniency.

Respected circuit judge Herman Thomas, who was once the Democratic Party’s choice to be the first black federal judge in south Alabama, is accused of bringing inmates to his office and spanking them with a paddle.

His trial for charges of sodomy, kidnapping, sex abuse, extortion, assault and ethics violations is set to begin today.

The 48-year-old insists he is innocent and claims he was trying to mentor the inmates.

I don't think "mentor" is the verb that he wants.

Thomas’s defence lawyer Robert ‘Cowboy Bob’ Clark has branded the accusers ‘lying felons’ who are trying to wreck the career of ‘a prestigious member of the Bar for over 20 years.’

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a leading civil rights group, has defended Thomas and claims race is behind his prosecution.

Thomas and his attorney blame the charges on politicians who don't like him.

‘There is no doubt that people assisted these inmates in telling these lies on me,’ Thomas said in April.

...

Chief Assistant District Attorney Nicki Patterson said authorities began looking at Thomas after he changed a jail sentence in 2006 for his cousin, former Mobile County school commissioner David Thomas, even though the case was being handled by another judge.

Other cases that Thomas had taken over from other judges without their approval soon surfaced, she said.

Some inmates in those cases described being checked out of the jail for meetings with Thomas in his car or in his private office in the county courthouse.

And there is physical evidence as well!

But Of Course, It Didn't Cause Her Adult Sexual Orientation

But Of Course, It Didn't Cause Her Adult Sexual Orientation

I'm just amazed at how many gay celebrities acknowledge that they were sexually abused as children, but insist that it didn't affect their adult sexual orientation. From June 18, 2001 People:

According to The Truth Is..., between the ages of roughly 7 and 10, Etheridge—daughter of John Etheridge, a high school teacher and basketball coach who died in 1991, and Elizabeth, a retired computer consultant—was sexually abused by her older sister Jennifer, now a home-maker in Arkansas. Etheridge, unwilling to be more specific about the abuse, says she is sure it affected her sexual orientation and left her unable to form a stable relationship from adolescence on, when she first realized she was a lesbian. "I don't think it's what made me gay," she says, "but it definitely shaped it."

No, of course not! Having someone sexually abuse her at a young age couldn't possibly have confused her sexual orientation! How silly to think otherwise!

A Sad Reminder Of Where This Leads

A Sad Reminder Of Where This Leads

I've mentioned before that there is a surprising amount of evidence that shows a strong correlation between child sexual abuse and adult homosexuality--and there should be no great surprise that one might cause the other. (The same is true with respect to child sexual abuse and adult substance abuse.) There are a surprisingly large number of homosexuals who acknowledge that they were sexually abused (such as Ellen Degeneres, and Anne Heche)--but insist that there's no connection between the two. In the aftermath of the intellectual/artsy sorts defending Roman Polanski's drugging and raping of a 13 year old, there's a sad column by the author Robert Goolrick reminding us of where sexual abuse takes a child:

Let me tell you a few things about the rape of a child. It happened to me. I was raped by my drunken father at the age of four, before the drunken eyes of my mother, so I know what I’m talking about.

It hurts like holy hell. The next time you see a grown man walking down the street with his four-year-old son or daughter, just observe the sheer difference in the size between the two people.

And, more importantly, it is the absolute, final, and total end of childhood, of any sense of innocence and wonder. Perhaps the girl in California had already lost hers. Perhaps her mother manipulated the situation. I, frankly, don’t give a good goddamn.

That girl is forever defined by that moment, as I have been defined by my own moment of terror and pain and horror. There is, for me, no place on this whole planet that is safe. I move farther and farther from the center of things. I find myself in hotel rooms or houses in remote places where nobody knows where I am, and very few even care.

I have been an alcoholic, a drug user, a sexual deviant and addict. I have tried with what heart I have left to be kind and generous and loving, and I have wrecked my life and hurt people I love. I have tried to be whole, to be a regular man inside a regular man’s skin, and I have failed miserably. [emphasis added]

I don't know exactly what kind of sexual deviant Goolrick was. I notice that a lot of his books seem to come up tagged as "gay literature." Is there any great surprise that early child sexual abuse might cause some sexual confusion as an adult? And yet looking directly at this question is something that just isn't going to happen, is it?

Making excuses for molesters like Polanski is the sign of the utter moral depravity of the entertainment industry.

More Sodomy Laws

More Sodomy Laws

I have been collecting early sodomy laws for some time, ever since Lawrence v. Texas (2003) found that homosexual sex was a constitutional right, because the Supreme Court found that "there is no long-standing history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. " I am taking notes out of a book, and using my blog as a notebook has the advantage that I won't misplace the notes, and you get to learn what I am learning.

Marietta and Rowe's Troubled Experiment, which I mentioned quite recently, includes a number of mentions of sodomy and buggery laws. At p. 12, they mention that the liberalism of the early Quaker government is exposed in that in the first sessions, in 1682, they made a number of crimes that were capital under English law, such as "rape, sodomy, bigamy, and incest" non-capital. First offense led to forfeiture of property, whipping, and imprisonment. I already had a copy of this statute; first offense: 1/3 of your estate is taken, six months of "hard Labour", and life in prison for the second offense. (I have a copy of that statute here.)

At pp. 17-18 they report that in 1700, the Pennsylvania Assembly decided to make all their criminal statutes more harsh:

Conviction for sodomy brought with it a life sentence with a whipping to be administered every three months if the defendant were single, castration if the convicted felon were married.

Considering that at least person convicted of being a pickpocket committed suicide rather than suffer the punishment of whipping [pp. 78-80], this must have been a truly horrifying punishment to look forward to every three months for the rest of your life. (Castration doesn't sound like a fun time, either.) Pennsylvania's very harsh 1700 criminal code was an attempt to prove that a bunch of Quakers could be tough on crime--even though there wasn't much crime in Pennsylvania yet. They had yet to convict anyone of sodomy or buggery. But because these laws were generally less severe than English law, the English government vetoed them. The 1705 criminal code was still pretty serious on sodomy or buggery:

Conviction for sodomy and buggery also meant life imprisonment and corporal punishment (not to exceed thirty-nine lashes) every three months. [pp. 19-20]

It sounds like they might have dropped the castration provision for married men. While the statute theoretically applies to both men and women, the castration provision makes it sound like they weren't expecting to get many female convicts.

The 1718 revisions to the criminal code went ahead and made sodomy and buggery capital crimes again. [p. 22]

There's not much detail in most of the sodomy and buggery cases that Marietta and Rowe examined. (I wouldn't be surprised if no one really wanted to give the details unless necessary to get a conviction.) It does appear that the distinction of sodomy (non-vaginal intercourse with humans) and buggery (sex with animals) that appears in many of the New England and Middle Colony codes (but not in Henry VIII's statute on the subject) was being used by Pennsylvania authorities. At least one of the heterosexual sodomy cases involved a husband and wife--although it may have involved force, and she testified against her husband. [pp. 88-89]

Not until 1786 did Pennsylvania reduce sodomy and buggery from capital to imprisonable offenses. [p. 211]

UPDATE: For as harsh as the punishments were (or perhaps because of how harsh they were), there are very prosecutions for buggery or sodomy from 1682-1800: 23 for buggery and 3 for sodomy in all of Pennsylvania. [Table 2.4] The obvious explanation is that if sodomy was consensual, it either had to be done in public view, or there would be no one to file a complaint, since both parties would have been subject to atrociously ferocious punishment.

UPDATE 2: To clarify: I'm gathering this data because the manner in which the Supreme Court decided Lawrence is a microcosm of how the "living Constitution" crowd has historically warped the Constitution to get the results that they wanted.

If Any Other Group Had This Disproportion, It Would Be A Sign

If Any Other Group Had This Disproportion, It Would Be A Sign

From the August 28, 2009 Washington Blade (one of the gay newspapers);

ATLANTA — Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference this week in Atlanta.

Dr. Amy Lansky of the CDC presented research at the Aug. 24 plenary in which the CDC estimated in the U.S. there were 692.2 new HIV cases in 2007 per 100,000 men who have sex with men.

While the CDC data has continually reported gay and bisexual men and other MSM of all races as the groups with the highest numbers of new HIV cases each year, AIDS activists said this was the first time the CDC clearly stated with a concrete rate how the disease is impacting gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men are also the only risk group in which new infections are increasing.

“They have never converted the numbers into a rate,” said Walt Senterfitt of the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project. Senterfitt is an epidemiologist.

Gee, I wonder why?

Of course I don't wonder why. No one has had the courage to face this before. Gay and bisexual men are about 4-4.5% of males in the U.S.--so they are less than 2-2.25% of the total population (because prepubescent males usually haven't identified themselves as gay). And yet more than 50% of the new AIDS cases in this country are in about 2% of the population.

It's a sign alright--that gay and bisexual men are doing something that they shouldn't be doing: changing sexual partners somewhat less often than they change socks. Yes, there's no question that some of the problem is that anal sex is especially well suited to the passing of AIDS from man to the next, who can then pass it on in the same way. (Heterosexual anal sex, while it also has a serious risk of spreading AIDS, tends to stop at the woman, because she is not going to be putting the AIDS virus into another man in the same way.) But if gay men were monogamous at even the level of say, Hugh Hefner in his prime, this would not be such a problem.

How can we solve our health care crisis, when some people just can't seem to control themselves?

Broken Glass

Broken Glass

PajamasMedia has published an article by me about a proposal now getting support from law professors to require businesses to post on the front window that they don't approve of homosexuality, and for the same reason that a lot of storefronts in the early years of the Nazi regime had Juden on them--to economically destroy those who don't approve.